@WitchPirate - Except we've seen evolution occur, such as in the species of plants and fruit fly that I mentioned in my YTMND. Its an accepted fact in science, as much a fact as other theories such as cell theory, atomic theory, continental drift theory, etc. In science, we only give the title 'theory' to things that are facts and massively supported by facts.

WitchPirate- the thing about those that believe in the teory of evolution accept that they may be wrong. Religious nuts think that a book written a couple thousand years ago is the absolute truth, and there is no way that it can be wrong. Science accepts that nothing is 100% certain. Religious people assert that their "truth" is divinely 100% true and there can be no other way about it.

+4 for effort, -1 for random assholism in the last frame. Not all Christians are raving fundamentalists, and not all republicans are christians. I for one believe in a very non-literal interpretation of the Bible. You have to remember it was written by less-than-perfect people who were limited by their own understanding of science, or lack thereof. BTW, science once insisted the world was flat, too. Can't dodge all the blame for that one.

Right WitchPirate, and what we call evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution we use today is the modern synthetic theory. It explains the fact of evolution the same way cell theory explains the facts of cell biology.

If Christians have open minds, we can see that evolution does not contradict the bible. Does anyone else think it's interesting that the order that things were created in Genesis is EXACTLY THE SAME as the order that scientists say the universe formed and life evolved? (IE: first stars, then earth, then water, then fish, then simple land animals, then humans?)

For example, la gravity theory. It states (IIRC) that the gravity constant is of 9.8 (meters or kilometers?) per hour. This isn't true on other planet (Actually, it isn't even true in some parts of this planet) so it can't be stated as a fact.

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

There is no physical evidence of evolution. It's just a way to rationalize where everything came from. The theory grows when they come up with something new that fits. They certainly didn't come up with the Promordial Soup on their first try.

It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

Artema- give it up. it is 9.8 meters per second squared. It is also based on the mass of the object (planet) which is causing the gravity. Therefore, the larger the object, the larger its gravity. That is why the gravity on the moon would be lesser than the gravity here on Earth.

"holy crap! you knew i was a republican!" - Raptor Jesus told me you were. Folks, the reason I included Republicans, Fundamentalist Christians, and those three states in the last frame is because those are the leading political and religious groups that have fought against evolution. Republcians do it to follow party lines and win constituent support, the populations in those states have voted against teaching evolution/for teaching ID, etc. There are exceptions from the rule, but they are just that.

"There is no physical evidence of evolution. It's just a way to rationalize where everything came from." There is, we've witnessed evolution in plants and animals. A long list of physical evidence can be found at this page: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I'm not denying that there are kooks out there, but still, you've got to keep in mind there's a lot of jerks on both sides. I'm willing to listen to arguments on both sides, but I've met a lot of people on the internets that think Christians are insane fundamentalist bigots without exception or that athiests are satan-worshipers or something, neither of which are true.

A scientific theory is not always necessarily a fact. It MAY be both, but it does not have to be. I think this remains a little bit unclear in the answer to the first question. Of course evolution is both theory and fact. But the Ęther theory for example was a scientific theory which was not a fact. It was wrong, but believed to be true until the 1960s. If there was no proof for evolution (but, as you mentioned, there is)... well, and if you're a Christian fundamentalist and reject this proof...

i agree that it would be better with the redneck and republican parts removed. i'm not a republican, but i'm not a democrat either, both parties are retarded. and politics has nothing to do with it anyway. people aren't creationists because they're republican, they're republican because they're creationists! perhaps 'fundamentalist muslim' or 'fundamentally a moron' or 'mullet man brought you back to the future from 1578' etc would be suitable replacements.

What seperates the theories from the facts is belief. Most people believe that gravity is correct. But what about Herby the Hobo Hermit? He believes that a giant million mouthed creature lives at the center of the earth and has enourmous sucking power. So enormous that all things close to the surface of the earth accelerate towards it at 9.8 meters per second squared. He's not wrong in his belief, but it's not necessarily fact.

[quote]In science, we only give the title
'theory' to things that are facts and massively supported by facts.[/quote]
I am a scientist, and as I said above, this is not the case. Except you believe in the Ęther theory and have proof for it being true, lol.

So the thing we observe as gravity, which can't really be given a name without becoming the start of a theory, is fact. The name we give the observation which allows us to study it in depth is a theory.

"I am a scientist, and as I
said above, this is not the case. Except you believe in the Ęther theory and have proof for it being true, lol." You've just found an exception to the rule with Ęther theory. Its also an example from about 100 years ago, so its nonsensical to compare it to the way 'theory' is used in modern science. The definition I used was taken out of an anthropology textbook, "Understanding Physical Anthropology & Archaeology" 8th edition.

You're mostly right, but your definition of "theory" is slightly misleading. A theory is a scientifically accepted explanation for a phenomenon, backed up by factual evidence and sound reasoning. Technically, it is not a fact, as it can still be disproven; however, it's so well-researched and proven and accepted that it is *assumed* true for the purposes of instruction and future research.

Thus, it's technically correct to say "It's a theory, not a fact," but the statement doesn't actually mean anything. Both are treated the same way scientifically, unless someone can provide evidence that casts doubt on the theory.

YOU ARE A KYKE - YOU ARE A KYKE - YOU ARE A KYKE - F*GGY JEW - STOP WHINING BITCH - GERMANY WANTS YOU SO THEY CAN GASS YOUR *SS - BITCH *SS JEW YOU ARE A KYKE - YOU ARE A KYKE - YOU ARE A KYKE - F*GGY JEW - STOP WHINING BITCH - GERMANY WANTS YOU SO THEY CAN GASS YOUR *SS - BITCH *SS JEW YOU ARE A KYKE - YOU ARE A KYKE - YOU ARE A KYKE - F*GGY JEW - STOP WHINING BITCH - GERMANY WANTS YOU SO THEY CAN GASS YOUR *SS - BITCH *SS JEW YOU ARE A KYKE - YOU ARE A KYKE - YOU ARE A KYKE - F*GGY JEW - STOP WHINING BITC

"Does anyone else think it's interesting that the
order that things were created in Genesis is EXACTLY THE SAME as the order
that scientists say the universe formed and life evolved?"
Wrong.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Genesis_1_got_the_order_of_events_right